1. (INTRODUCTION): The Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
(CONSTITUTIONALITY AND CONSISTENCY): This prevents one from having to pay more to be let out of jail than the charges against them hold to, pay more reimbursement for a crime than necessary, and not receiving inhumane or uncommon treatment for the crimes charged against them.
(JUSTICE): It is just to consider the charges fairly when suspecting another of committing a crime.
(EXPEDIENCY): It is appropriate to consider the crime when assigning how much bail, how much of a fine, and what type of punishment a suspect receives.
(PRACTICABILITY): This amendment prevents those who charge someone with a crime from taking advantage of them in ways that are too harsh, too costly, and too extensive.
(CONCLUSION): If someone is suspected of committing a crime, and they are put in jail for it, then they should have the capability of getting out of jail at costs that are not in excess to that of which the crimes was committed. If finding someone guilty of committing a crime, then the fine should not exceed the costs of the charges. In addition, punishments for crimes should not be inhumane, or unusual.
2. Amendment 20 was approved on November 7, 2000. It amends the state’s constitution so it recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Taking effect on 6/1/01, those having certain medical conditions, and hold documentation stating that they might benefit from marijuana, are free from certain charges being placed on them at the state-level. Several studies have found that medical marijuana has beneficial characteristics, and 54% of those voting in Colorado agreed with this amendment in 2000: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4526&wtm_view=medical.
3. Denying available treatments to those in need is of worse conditions than that of failing to provide them. Negative views on marijuana have existed for years. However, a growing number of studies have found marijuana to hold benefits for many who are suffering: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Chapter 8 rhetorical activity #2, page 283
1. Senses can be unreliable when they occur separately, rather than together (for example, someone could hear the voice of someone but not see them, and this could be a recording of their voice). Sight can be unreliable when one is unfamiliar with how a person looks, and they may need more time with that person to determine proper recognition of someone. Identical twins may leave on seeing one person rather than another. Ones hearing could be damaged from a loud noise, and therefore what not heard afterward may be subject to question. Discussion with others of an event could lead one to assumptions that their definitions of certain senses are less reliable than those of the majority. The amount of time that has passed may prevent one from proper recall of a situation (or may allow time to obtain proper recall), perhaps depending on the sense, the commonality of experience, attentiveness at the time, etc. Empirical evidence can be reliable when such evidences exist in conditions where other factors relate to holding the same validity present within such conditions, and other evidences are present suggesting no other factors are present to render these possibilities potentially implausible.
Testing the reliability of arguments:
Data should be provided with sources, method, and date. Testimony should meet the following 4 criteria:
1. A person must be in a position to observe the events in question.
2. conditions must be such that a witness can adequately perceive an event
3. the witness’s state of mind at the time must be conductive to her accurate observations and reporting. If this is not the case, her testimony must be modified accordingly.
4. in keeping with modern faith in empirical evidence, testimony offered by a proximate witness is more valuable than evidence offered by someone who was not present. If the proximate witness gave testimony to someone else, tests one through three must be applied to any testimony offered by the second person, as well.
note: I think this part of the question is asking to look over at least two arguments to test their reliability.
For my first argument reliability test, I will use pp. 276, Senator Obama’s 2002 explanation of his reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. Obama relies solely on data for his argument since the conditions of the war were outside of any one person’s observation. Of the data needed, sources (others statements or positions on things, etc.), and date (“Iraq poses no imminent and direct threat”) are present. I cannot determine if methods are represented in adequate ways. Obama was running for President, and the evidences of why Iraq isn’t current in threat to America was not provided…perhaps for good reasons (security of the US). Obama’s statements appear to meet the criteria of testimony condition 4.
For my second argument reliability test, I will discuss the argument of this question. It says that data must have sources, method and date present to be considered reliable. However, if these evidences can be questioned for their own validity, then they should not be considered (perhaps the method measured something else, not present in the current conditions; the source has a bias in his judgment of the way things are; and/or they are out of date to the current conditions). Other criteria also needs taken into consideration from testimony; including potential factors that could end up misleading groups of people (for example, the line of questioning used, the collaboration of those testifying prior to the incident being questioned, and/or other factors that may leave testimony with less value). Perhaps the honest interpretation of the events would lead to conditions that do not support what those present would like to continue to have present, rather than not. In sum, this part of the exercise baffles me and leaves me without any ability to answer it in ways more fitting to its request (whether it be too vague, asking more than I can offer, etc.).
Testing the reliability of arguments:
Data should be provided with sources, method, and date. Testimony should meet the following 4 criteria:
1. A person must be in a position to observe the events in question.
2. conditions must be such that a witness can adequately perceive an event
3. the witness’s state of mind at the time must be conductive to her accurate observations and reporting. If this is not the case, her testimony must be modified accordingly.
4. in keeping with modern faith in empirical evidence, testimony offered by a proximate witness is more valuable than evidence offered by someone who was not present. If the proximate witness gave testimony to someone else, tests one through three must be applied to any testimony offered by the second person, as well.
note: I think this part of the question is asking to look over at least two arguments to test their reliability.
For my first argument reliability test, I will use pp. 276, Senator Obama’s 2002 explanation of his reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. Obama relies solely on data for his argument since the conditions of the war were outside of any one person’s observation. Of the data needed, sources (others statements or positions on things, etc.), and date (“Iraq poses no imminent and direct threat”) are present. I cannot determine if methods are represented in adequate ways. Obama was running for President, and the evidences of why Iraq isn’t current in threat to America was not provided…perhaps for good reasons (security of the US). Obama’s statements appear to meet the criteria of testimony condition 4.
For my second argument reliability test, I will discuss the argument of this question. It says that data must have sources, method and date present to be considered reliable. However, if these evidences can be questioned for their own validity, then they should not be considered (perhaps the method measured something else, not present in the current conditions; the source has a bias in his judgment of the way things are; and/or they are out of date to the current conditions). Other criteria also needs taken into consideration from testimony; including potential factors that could end up misleading groups of people (for example, the line of questioning used, the collaboration of those testifying prior to the incident being questioned, and/or other factors that may leave testimony with less value). Perhaps the honest interpretation of the events would lead to conditions that do not support what those present would like to continue to have present, rather than not. In sum, this part of the exercise baffles me and leaves me without any ability to answer it in ways more fitting to its request (whether it be too vague, asking more than I can offer, etc.).
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Chapter 7 Rhetorical Activity # 3
Exordium: It isn’t right for companies to constantly suggests benefits, and/or satisfactory conditions (rather than continuing within unsatisfactory conditions) to come to employees over and over, without adequately following through with their promises.
Narratio: Holding meetings every so often to let employees know that the conditions of their work environment will be improving need to be improved. Inappropriate pay, a lack of benefit, conditions of a job that are too demanding, and other problems arising from work environments lead to poorer performance of employees via fatigue, injury, etc.
Partitio: Anger is appropriate when companies treat their employees this way.
Confirmatio: When employers constantly make, and break, promises of better work-related conditions to their employees, these employees have every right to be angry.
Refutatio: Statistics may suggests that when employees think that their working for a company is soon to bring them better conditions than the ones they are currently in, that they will work harder and be more satisfied with their work. Therefore, if employers lead their employees to believe that these conditions are coming, then the workload of their employees will be greater.
Peroratio: This may work for a short period or even a long one if the people are convincing enough. But after a while, statistics may suggests that these effects will end up leaving employees in conditions of worry and stress over losing their jobs for reasons relevant to their constantly being left in states of degradation due to these numerous promises being broken. Perhaps it’s better that the employers keep their mouths shut, promising nothing, rather than constantly belittling the people who are there to make them money. Employees should have rights to protect them from companies being allowed to do this. If the employers are experiencing the same sort of betrayed promises coming to them from those external to these current employee-employer conditions, then they should just keep their mouths shut until something does happen. Other statistics on various other ways of influencing effective workers may just as likely exist. If their goal is to hire people under alternate conditions than the ones that they think are present, then they should not be misled.
Appeals of other emotions discussed:
Shame: The above conditions leave way for employees to rightfully lose respect for their employer. They are taking advantage of a situation, and doing so in obvious ways.
Compassion: Compassion for the employee should be given. Especially when the air does not allow one to hold a voice to speak up on the matter, nor does it allow one to leave the situation.
Hopelessness: Hopelessness is present in the employees due to the reasons listed in compassion, as well as those present in their work efforts potentially being influenced into states of degradation. Not only are they hopeless in the situation and in not being able to leave the situation, but they are also hopelessly left in conditions potentially promoting states of fatigue and depression.
Narratio: Holding meetings every so often to let employees know that the conditions of their work environment will be improving need to be improved. Inappropriate pay, a lack of benefit, conditions of a job that are too demanding, and other problems arising from work environments lead to poorer performance of employees via fatigue, injury, etc.
Partitio: Anger is appropriate when companies treat their employees this way.
Confirmatio: When employers constantly make, and break, promises of better work-related conditions to their employees, these employees have every right to be angry.
Refutatio: Statistics may suggests that when employees think that their working for a company is soon to bring them better conditions than the ones they are currently in, that they will work harder and be more satisfied with their work. Therefore, if employers lead their employees to believe that these conditions are coming, then the workload of their employees will be greater.
Peroratio: This may work for a short period or even a long one if the people are convincing enough. But after a while, statistics may suggests that these effects will end up leaving employees in conditions of worry and stress over losing their jobs for reasons relevant to their constantly being left in states of degradation due to these numerous promises being broken. Perhaps it’s better that the employers keep their mouths shut, promising nothing, rather than constantly belittling the people who are there to make them money. Employees should have rights to protect them from companies being allowed to do this. If the employers are experiencing the same sort of betrayed promises coming to them from those external to these current employee-employer conditions, then they should just keep their mouths shut until something does happen. Other statistics on various other ways of influencing effective workers may just as likely exist. If their goal is to hire people under alternate conditions than the ones that they think are present, then they should not be misled.
Appeals of other emotions discussed:
Shame: The above conditions leave way for employees to rightfully lose respect for their employer. They are taking advantage of a situation, and doing so in obvious ways.
Compassion: Compassion for the employee should be given. Especially when the air does not allow one to hold a voice to speak up on the matter, nor does it allow one to leave the situation.
Hopelessness: Hopelessness is present in the employees due to the reasons listed in compassion, as well as those present in their work efforts potentially being influenced into states of degradation. Not only are they hopeless in the situation and in not being able to leave the situation, but they are also hopelessly left in conditions potentially promoting states of fatigue and depression.
Chapter 6 Rhetorical Activity # 5
Outline:
I. Letter 1: To someone close to me
II. Letter 2: To someone who is less close to me
III. Letter 3: To a company or corporation
IV. Questions:
a. What happens to your voice in each case?
b. What features of your writing are altered?
Letter 1: Grandma
Grandma,
Hi, it’s Mark.
I am writing this letter to you for an assignment in class that is asking me to write a letter to someone close to me. I don’t really have anything to say, and am having a hard time with the assignment because I’m tired and have a lot of other homework also. I think I have already spent too much time trying to think about how to go about this one, and so I guess I am just winging it.
The letter is for my English class called Advanced Composition and Rhetoric. Advanced Rhetoric must have something to do with ancient rhetoric, because that is what my book is called.
The class is one of four I need for my Bachelor degree. I am taking two others, and will be taking the fourth this summer. Perhaps I already told you that. Anyway, I am expecting my degree in August, but will be going through a ceremony at the end of April, since dad decided to come, and mom might. I don’t like the idea of going through the motions of receiving a certificate, when I haven’t actually met all the requirements expected of me to get it. Oh well, I guess.
Anyway, hope things are good out your way.
Love, Mark
Letter 2: Dr. Souder
Professor Souder,
Hi, it’s Mark Psinas, from you Fall 2010 Advanced Composition and Rhetoric class. This letter is in response to rhetorical activities question 5 of chapter six, on page # 231.
I was thinking about emailing you to ask if I should include the written letters on my blog, with the two questions that are asked after writing the letters. Or, should I just answer the questions. I guess I will just put a link up with access to them, because I am running short on time and need to finish this and make time for other things I need to get done.
I was writing my grandma, and I ended up questioning the relevance of ancient rhetoric to “advanced rhetoric.” Page # 237 says comparison and description are still used today; which were used by the ancient rhetoricians. As well, I assume learning about the ones that were used often, but not so much anymore would lead to advanced learning skills involving rhetoric. So, I guess I wonder, if these statements are acceptable descriptions? And, if so, are there any rhetorics that are in use today that were not used by the ancients?
Anyway, I have a lot of stuff coming up due with school, graduation, taxes, etc., and this assignment has already taken up quite a bit of my time.
Well, I hope I get a decent grade on this.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Letter 3: CSU-Pueblo
To: CSU-Pueblo
From: Mark Psinas
Regarding: Question 5 of chapter six of my Advanced Composition and Rhetoric course book, per the assignment.
Hello, this letter may appear odd to you, but it is following the guidelines of an assignment I am doing for one of four courses I am taking to get the professional writing minor added to my Bachelor degree. This letter is following two others I have written; the first to my grandma, and the second to my professor.
In the first letter, I discussed how I will be walking through the ceremony in April, but will not complete my requirements until August. I don’t really like the idea of participating in a ceremony for something that has yet to be completed. So, I question, what might this be teaching people? Have you ever had anyone walk through the ceremony and not get a degree? That has to be disappointing! Anyway, if not, I sure hope that I am not the first.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Question 1: What happens to your voice in each case?
It becomes more formal. I went from writing things about myself, to writing things from the previous letter relevant to the professor, to writing things relevant to the university. I discussed with the professor issues I talked about in the first letter, and then discussed issues relevant to the university relevant to the first letter. I brought up the major points in all three letters, or tried to at least briefly mention them, and then centered the writing on issues relevant to their role. My voice went from talking about my current purpose of writing and surrounding issues of my life while involved in the writing, to a voice of less issues of my life and more questioning the purpose, to a final voice of less purpose (except for some clarity, similar to the fashions of the first two letters) and more questioning the surrounding issues (brought up in the first letter, and briefly mentioned in the second) relevant to those the third letter was written to.
Question 2: What features of your writing are altered?
The attitudinal dimensions: acceptance, indifference, and rejection.
Acceptance in the first letter was seen in just letting my grandma know what was going on, without going into much specifics. Acceptance of the second letter was in the course content itself. And acceptance of the third letter was with the clarity of purpose, and relevance involving the university.
Indifference in the first letter came with not needing to elaborate on the specifics of further details about the assignment (written about in the second letter), and about the stand of question taken in the third (the first letter being more passive). Indifference in the second letter was seen in my not bringing up the personal mentioned in the first (also an indifference in the third letter), and not bringing up the issues of the third letter (instead just mentioning them).
Also indifferent in the third letter, the second letter went into detail about the assignment and course.
Rejection was seen in not really caring much for details on issues that are irrelevant to the primary purpose of the persons influence: grandma not needing course details and requests for information already known to be outside of ones influence; Professor Souder’s not needing this same influence of request to the university, and not needing the wining-like writing present in both letters; and the university not needing the wining-like writing irrelevant to their role, nor needing the details of the second letter irrelevant to their concern.
I. Letter 1: To someone close to me
II. Letter 2: To someone who is less close to me
III. Letter 3: To a company or corporation
IV. Questions:
a. What happens to your voice in each case?
b. What features of your writing are altered?
Letter 1: Grandma
Grandma,
Hi, it’s Mark.
I am writing this letter to you for an assignment in class that is asking me to write a letter to someone close to me. I don’t really have anything to say, and am having a hard time with the assignment because I’m tired and have a lot of other homework also. I think I have already spent too much time trying to think about how to go about this one, and so I guess I am just winging it.
The letter is for my English class called Advanced Composition and Rhetoric. Advanced Rhetoric must have something to do with ancient rhetoric, because that is what my book is called.
The class is one of four I need for my Bachelor degree. I am taking two others, and will be taking the fourth this summer. Perhaps I already told you that. Anyway, I am expecting my degree in August, but will be going through a ceremony at the end of April, since dad decided to come, and mom might. I don’t like the idea of going through the motions of receiving a certificate, when I haven’t actually met all the requirements expected of me to get it. Oh well, I guess.
Anyway, hope things are good out your way.
Love, Mark
Letter 2: Dr. Souder
Professor Souder,
Hi, it’s Mark Psinas, from you Fall 2010 Advanced Composition and Rhetoric class. This letter is in response to rhetorical activities question 5 of chapter six, on page # 231.
I was thinking about emailing you to ask if I should include the written letters on my blog, with the two questions that are asked after writing the letters. Or, should I just answer the questions. I guess I will just put a link up with access to them, because I am running short on time and need to finish this and make time for other things I need to get done.
I was writing my grandma, and I ended up questioning the relevance of ancient rhetoric to “advanced rhetoric.” Page # 237 says comparison and description are still used today; which were used by the ancient rhetoricians. As well, I assume learning about the ones that were used often, but not so much anymore would lead to advanced learning skills involving rhetoric. So, I guess I wonder, if these statements are acceptable descriptions? And, if so, are there any rhetorics that are in use today that were not used by the ancients?
Anyway, I have a lot of stuff coming up due with school, graduation, taxes, etc., and this assignment has already taken up quite a bit of my time.
Well, I hope I get a decent grade on this.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Letter 3: CSU-Pueblo
To: CSU-Pueblo
From: Mark Psinas
Regarding: Question 5 of chapter six of my Advanced Composition and Rhetoric course book, per the assignment.
Hello, this letter may appear odd to you, but it is following the guidelines of an assignment I am doing for one of four courses I am taking to get the professional writing minor added to my Bachelor degree. This letter is following two others I have written; the first to my grandma, and the second to my professor.
In the first letter, I discussed how I will be walking through the ceremony in April, but will not complete my requirements until August. I don’t really like the idea of participating in a ceremony for something that has yet to be completed. So, I question, what might this be teaching people? Have you ever had anyone walk through the ceremony and not get a degree? That has to be disappointing! Anyway, if not, I sure hope that I am not the first.
Sincerely,
Mark Psinas
Question 1: What happens to your voice in each case?
It becomes more formal. I went from writing things about myself, to writing things from the previous letter relevant to the professor, to writing things relevant to the university. I discussed with the professor issues I talked about in the first letter, and then discussed issues relevant to the university relevant to the first letter. I brought up the major points in all three letters, or tried to at least briefly mention them, and then centered the writing on issues relevant to their role. My voice went from talking about my current purpose of writing and surrounding issues of my life while involved in the writing, to a voice of less issues of my life and more questioning the purpose, to a final voice of less purpose (except for some clarity, similar to the fashions of the first two letters) and more questioning the surrounding issues (brought up in the first letter, and briefly mentioned in the second) relevant to those the third letter was written to.
Question 2: What features of your writing are altered?
The attitudinal dimensions: acceptance, indifference, and rejection.
Acceptance in the first letter was seen in just letting my grandma know what was going on, without going into much specifics. Acceptance of the second letter was in the course content itself. And acceptance of the third letter was with the clarity of purpose, and relevance involving the university.
Indifference in the first letter came with not needing to elaborate on the specifics of further details about the assignment (written about in the second letter), and about the stand of question taken in the third (the first letter being more passive). Indifference in the second letter was seen in my not bringing up the personal mentioned in the first (also an indifference in the third letter), and not bringing up the issues of the third letter (instead just mentioning them).
Also indifferent in the third letter, the second letter went into detail about the assignment and course.
Rejection was seen in not really caring much for details on issues that are irrelevant to the primary purpose of the persons influence: grandma not needing course details and requests for information already known to be outside of ones influence; Professor Souder’s not needing this same influence of request to the university, and not needing the wining-like writing present in both letters; and the university not needing the wining-like writing irrelevant to their role, nor needing the details of the second letter irrelevant to their concern.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)